Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Flying Pig said:

 

One day we met a couple of locals who told a story about how the big AS90 self-propelled guns would park up on the East Range and fire across the valley - road, villages and all - onto the impact zones on the Centre Ranges.  We thought that highly unlikely and queried it with one of the range safety officers next time we attended a safety briefing for pass renewal.  "Oh yes", he said, "and it's a helicopter corridor too. But the helicopters go through at a thousand feet and the shells go over at two thousand feet and we've never had a problem".

 

You can feel those guns firing from miles away. They make the windows shake in my parents house which is a good 5 or more miles from the edge of the plain. 

 

Right now I went off topic, back to it. I wonder if you could extend the catch point on the platform loop to give a short siding to hold a coach or van?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Rivercider said:

I don't know much about the history or chronology of the St Ives branch

but the loco shed at St Ives is on the St Erth side of a viaduct,

 

cheers

Thanks Kevin.

Yes of course you are right. St Ives is one of the best known examples of a distant engine shed, although not on it's own spur.

 

Edited by Harlequin
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Harlequin said:

Thanks Kevin.

Yes of course you are right. St Ives is one of the best known examples of a distant engine shed, although not on it's own spur.

 

Yes, I realised that the track layout at St Ives is different from your proposal, but it did give a prototypical example of the geographic separation of station and shed, presumably because of space constraints. I know little of Abbotsbury, and nothing of Aberaeron!

The Exmouth branch is an example of a branch line where all the structures were built in anticipation of future double tracking, though of course it is an LSWR example,

 

cheers  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Phil.

 

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this. On the local industry building/dairy you might want to move the covering roof section to the right-hand end of the building; I imagine it may cover a loading dock? That way when a wagon is loaded it would be propelled further into the siding allowing a 2nd or 3rd wagon to be loaded. As it stands it'd only allow a single wagon to be loaded before having to swap it out for another...

 

Like the plan and wish you well for the build. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
19 minutes ago, AndyB said:

Hi Phil.

 

Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this. On the local industry building/dairy you might want to move the covering roof section to the right-hand end of the building; I imagine it may cover a loading dock? That way when a wagon is loaded it would be propelled further into the siding allowing a 2nd or 3rd wagon to be loaded. As it stands it'd only allow a single wagon to be loaded before having to swap it out for another...

 

Like the plan and wish you well for the build. 

 

Hi Andy,

 

I imagined the track continuing under that roof for some distance. (I should have drawn a dotted line, sorry). So the loading dock is almost the full length of the shed, and is covered by the shed but the final wagon length of the track is also covered.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Late to the party but a couple (probably more by the time I finish) of comments.  Overall I very much like the 'railway set in the scenery approach as we don't see enough examples of it nowadays where there seems to be a yearning to cram in lots of track.  

 

The long siding to the engine shed does look a bit forced to me  as does the double track underbridge but examples have been quoted so the back story makes sense.  The GWR built several single line stretches of infrastructure with double line overbridges but I can't offhand think of any where they biuilt double line underbridges but it might have happened.

 

I particularly like the engine release point at the platform not being part of a crossover - examples definitely existed (eg. Kingsbridge before the 1930s expansion) and this type of layout is rarely modelled as people are tempted to stick an extended siding on the end of the runround loop.  It looks much 'cleaner' without that temptation.

 

Coal pens (not staithes - if you'd seen the ones at Blyth you'd know why that name is wrong ;) ) are not a requisite feature.  On our local branch coal was handled at the terminus and both intermediate stations and there were no pens - the coal was loaded direct to delivery lorries being bagged as it was transferred.  Inevitably that created a demurrage cost and a shunting nuisance at the terminus.  At one intermediate station coal traffic reappeared in the early 1960s and the coal merchant had a garden shed for his 'office'/staff messroom but at both other stations there was no coal merchant's office.  At the other intermediate station there was no office but in the early 1960s the merchant actually built pens for coal storage in a yard where none had previously existed!  At the terminus one merchant had an office elsewhere on railway property where it directly faced a road but was nowhere near where his traffic was handled while the other merchant here in the final days of coal traffic, and one who had dealt in coal pre-war, had their offices in the town where they were better sited for customers to go in to order coal.  So a coal merchant's office is not an essential.

 

I would definitely see a line of this nature being worked under 'One Engine In Steam' Regulations but if of GWR origin it would inevitably have a small ground level lever frame in a wooden hut possibly even carrying the name 'signal box' even if it wasn't a block post.  But the signalling will be extremely simple - the only semaphore signals would be a Home Signal and a platform Starting Signal and there might or - just as readily - might not be ground discs for the exit from the loop and sidings. 

 

You could reasonably run  Mixed Trains (or a couple of Mixed Trains daily) to handle what will in any event be fairly limited freight taffic unless you have good reason for something specialised traffic wise which would increase business beyond what takes place at the station.  You do have the 'industry' - whatever you decide it to be - which could obviously be one sort of traffic. justification and there might be 'something' in the vicinity which justifies additional freight traffic.  The latter depends very much on the period modelled - for example on the branch here outwards timber traffic ('whole' trees) was not unusual in pre-war years while rather outlandishly in the early 1960s there was a steady traffic of ferry wagons coming in from Czechoslovakia bringing in wooden toys for a local importer.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The latter depends very much on the period modelled - for example on the branch here outwards timber traffic ('whole' trees) was not unusual in pre-war years while rather outlandishly in the early 1960s there was a steady traffic of ferry wagons coming in from Czechoslovakia bringing in wooden toys for a local importer.  

Sounds interesting — but where is "here"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

But the signalling will be extremely simple - the only semaphore signals would be a Home Signal and a platform Starting Signal

 

Assuming the frame was unlocked by the staff/token/etc, with everything lying normal in the frame, would both signals be normally off?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another lovely plan (I've thoroughly enjoyed playing trains on it whilst marshalling thoughts over the past couple of days), beautifully presented.

 

Those thoughts seemed small but lead to significant changes which suit my biases but won't suit all (or indeed any) others. They're offered below not as suggested improvements but...well, just cos really :)

 

One of the things that made Hampton Malstead really click for me was the long loop - the first points a train met when approaching the station. The shorter loop as at Bucklecombe risks looking more trainset than model railway to my eyes, although I know it's not a-typical.

 

As the industry is purely to generate  varied traffic, why not just sketch it in (perhaps a walled yard, engine house and back of a generic Victorian-industrial-something in low relief) with most of it off-scene? This allows it to be different things on different days, excusing/justifying/requiring almost any traffic you wish to run. Off-scene yet rail-served means putting it where the engine shed currently stands, I think. That would free up the dairy site to become a fully fleshed-out water mill of some sort, to make use of the weir (which I really like). 

 

Combining the above would give the industry siding coming off the LH end of a lengthened loop, which could perhaps more reasonably make use of the double track bridge. The engine shed would need to move, the station end of the loop being the only remaining space for it. I envisage something like the arrangement at Henley-in-Arden. Downsides: loss of shed independence and sense of a loco moving between two scenes; increased board width required on the RHS 3' or so. Upsides: Siding for coal wagons or cripples etc; increased depth of scene, helping to further mask the narrowness of the goods yard and increasing the perceived size of village; easier to admire your stud up close. I don't see reach being an issue since access to the goods yard siding remains unchanged, and cottages don't need to be re-railed! Moving the loco on and off shed is still quite involved, especially if there is no intermediate crossover in the loop, and so should still feel like a Happening.

 

Signal cabin would also have to move, perhaps just to the other side of the running line as there would no longer be the dairy siding. The benefit is the viewer would be looking at the front of it, a more engaging aspect.

 

Each change felt like a small step but the end result is rather different, feeling more like a rural town than a village, on a trackplan which owes everything to Bucklecombe but no longer closely resembles it.

 

Sorry for the lack of diagram to better explain things. The shoddy sketch from my tiny and trashed notebook isn't worth the time trying to upload from my phone, and those two are all I've got to work with for the time being!

 

Anyway cheers for another great plan to mull over. I look forward to seeing how it develops :)

  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
17 hours ago, D9020 Nimbus said:

Sounds interesting — but where is "here"?

In the Thames Valley (which gives you a range of choices ;) )

 

14 hours ago, Titanius Anglesmith said:

 

Assuming the frame was unlocked by the staff/token/etc, with everything lying normal in the frame, would both signals be normally off?

That is a very good question.  Technically if the building and its lever frame are a signal box (even if it is not a block post)  the frame would not be released by the train staff - that would only happen if it was a ground frame.  I suspect you have probably led us to the reason why the GWR's S&T Dept classified these buildings as 'signal boxes' rather than as ground frames.

 

The method of working for OES was very straightforward - 'someone' at the terminus would clear the Home Signal for the arriving train and return it to danger after the train had arrived.  In most cases 'someone' at the terminus would obtain authority for the train to return to the other end of the line and clear the Starting Signal to allow it to depart from the station platform.  In both cases teh signal would be returned to danger after teh train has passed.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
23 hours ago, Schooner said:

Another lovely plan (I've thoroughly enjoyed playing trains on it whilst marshalling thoughts over the past couple of days), beautifully presented.

Thanks! I go the extra mile for the satisfaction of creating a pleasing design and because I think the details help imagine the layout better.

 

By the way, did you notice that I didn't use Streamline templates in this design? I just made gentle junctions between tracks on the basis that they can be formed using kit-built or hand-built pointwork. This stems from Peco moving glacially slowly and sticking to their decades old geometry while Finetrax look set to surpass them in many ways.

 

23 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Those thoughts seemed small but lead to significant changes which suit my biases but won't suit all (or indeed any) others. They're offered below not as suggested improvements but...well, just cos really :)

 

One of the things that made Hampton Malstead really click for me was the long loop - the first points a train met when approaching the station. The shorter loop as at Bucklecombe risks looking more trainset than model railway to my eyes, although I know it's not a-typical.

 

As the industry is purely to generate  varied traffic, why not just sketch it in (perhaps a walled yard, engine house and back of a generic Victorian-industrial-something in low relief) with most of it off-scene? This allows it to be different things on different days, excusing/justifying/requiring almost any traffic you wish to run. Off-scene yet rail-served means putting it where the engine shed currently stands, I think. That would free up the dairy site to become a fully fleshed-out water mill of some sort, to make use of the weir (which I really like). 

Interesting idea. I toyed with the idea of having the industry entirely off scene, imagined to be say half a mile up the line, with a facing connection to the station. This would mean bringing the traffic into the station before picking out the relevant wagons and making a special trip back up the line to deliver them into the private siding. In that case, the engine shed could stay put...

An excuse to model a water mill would be great (in theory)!

 

23 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Combining the above would give the industry siding coming off the LH end of a lengthened loop, which could perhaps more reasonably make use of the double track bridge. The engine shed would need to move, the station end of the loop being the only remaining space for it. I envisage something like the arrangement at Henley-in-Arden. Downsides: loss of shed independence and sense of a loco moving between two scenes; increased board width required on the RHS 3' or so. Upsides: Siding for coal wagons or cripples etc; increased depth of scene, helping to further mask the narrowness of the goods yard and increasing the perceived size of village; easier to admire your stud up close. I don't see reach being an issue since access to the goods yard siding remains unchanged, and cottages don't need to be re-railed! Moving the loco on and off shed is still quite involved, especially if there is no intermediate crossover in the loop, and so should still feel like a Happening.

A definite change of character. In my mind Bucklecombe is a quiet, rural station with only one loco present at a time - 48xx, small prairie or small pannier tank.

 

23 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Signal cabin would also have to move, perhaps just to the other side of the running line as there would no longer be the dairy siding. The benefit is the viewer would be looking at the front of it, a more engaging aspect.

Perfectly valid but in this case I quite liked the twist of seeing the box from the back. From some close-up angles you'd be able to look through the side windows, over the frame, to the scene beyond. And it is doing a specific job on the near side of the track (along with the big tree) of breaking up the view of the station so that it looks bigger and so that the movement of trains is a bit more interesting by being slightly obscured.

 

23 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Each change felt like a small step but the end result is rather different, feeling more like a rural town than a village, on a trackplan which owes everything to Bucklecombe but no longer closely resembles it.

Yes, I think you are describing a location with more significance on the network than Bucklecombe - on the order of St Ives or Cardigan, perhaps.

 

23 hours ago, Schooner said:

 

Sorry for the lack of diagram to better explain things. The shoddy sketch from my tiny and trashed notebook isn't worth the time trying to upload from my phone, and those two are all I've got to work with for the time being!

 

Anyway cheers for another great plan to mull over. I look forward to seeing how it develops :)

Thanks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/04/2021 at 08:28, Harlequin said:

I realised that I could make the entire 3800mm (12ft 6in) width scenic by using temporally attached cassettes as the FY and then the entire width would be good to look at and would allow the layout track plan more room to breathe.

 

I think the necessities of show layouts, where the fiddle yard becomes a "hidden" part of the layout that takes up valuable space, combined with many people having layouts in dedicated hobby rooms where a full time fiddle yard isn't a visual distraction, mean many of us just default to sacrificing space to a fiddle yard.

 

In your case, where the layout will be part of the decor of a normal part of the house, dedicating the entire shelf space to the layout should make (once completed) a more visually pleasant appearance to the entire room - with the bonus of as you noted allowing the layout to breath.

 

 

On 08/04/2021 at 08:28, Harlequin said:
  • Have some industry nearby that requires specialised traffic over and above the normal goods and passenger workings.

The kickback industry is probably the biggest question mark.

 

Notice that, although this would realistically be operated using one-engine-in-steam, the position of the engine shed spur would allow limited shunting of the yard while passenger movements were going on - if you wanted to play trains.

 

As is usual, your layout looks great and looks like it would be great for someone even if you don't end up building it.

 

It probably won't be for you - likely to crowd the layout too much for what you seem to like - but for someone looking for extra play potential or some really justified 2 engine operation perhaps having a small industrial loco bringing wagons from up-river into the goods yard area, or maybe even an OO9 line a little bit up the hillside could provide that extra interest at the cost of a bit more track.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
12 hours ago, Harlequin said:

 

Interesting idea. I toyed with the idea of having the industry entirely off scene, imagined to be say half a mile up the line, with a facing connection to the station. This would mean bringing the traffic into the station before picking out the relevant wagons and making a special trip back up the line to deliver them into the private siding. In that case, the engine shed could stay put...

 

Nothing at all wrong (apart from any visual loss/gain of impact etc) with having 'the industry' a little way up the line and plenty of examples of the existence of such an arrangement such as the CWS milk factory at Wallingford or Thomas & Green's paper factory near Wooburn Green on the Wycombe branch (in that case served from an intermediate station not the terminus)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2021 at 21:59, Harlequin said:

...the details help imagine the layout better.

Without doubt, they're much more informative (and evocative) than the results of dedicated trackplanning software. 

 

On 12/04/2021 at 21:59, Harlequin said:

By the way, did you notice that I didn't use Streamline templates in this design?

Ah! I spent a lot of time scratching my head and wondering how you got the geometry so smooth, but failed to make the leap to the truth! Makes sense, and works well. 

 

On 12/04/2021 at 21:59, Harlequin said:

...great (in theory)!

My ideas to a tee! I might have some grand plans, but I'm actually building an Inglenook after all... :)

 

On 12/04/2021 at 21:59, Harlequin said:

Perfectly valid but in this case...

Oh, I completely agree (and intend to do the same on a future project), just suggesting that what was lost on the swings could be regained on the roundabout!*

 

On 12/04/2021 at 21:59, Harlequin said:

...on the order of...

Nailsworth! A branch with a ton inspiration for industrial sidings...

 

Might as well:

20210416_163928.jpg.5e5f1e329240fcbb96a7a4f7fd02ddf5.jpg

 

Cheers

 

*Perhaps 'loop' and 'headshunt' work as a more fitting phrase

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold

Why do things always turn up when you're looking for something else?

 

On pages 108-109 of "Great Western Infrastructure" there's a double page spread photo of Aberayron. (Dated 17 July 1929)

 

The viewpoint is on the inland side of the bridge, looking across the tracks towards the platform. River running below, point rodding and signal wires running from the tiny signal box across the bridge in the foreground, 517 steaming gently with autocoach against the platform,  goods yard to the right, buildings behind and hills arrayed in the background.

 

Perfect.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.